User talk:DGG/Archive 112 May 2016

I thought you might enjoy this...
Quote; Google can bring you back 100,000 answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one. From The Flagg Township Public Library in Roselle, IL. Buster Seven   Talk  19:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation
 * Draft:Bahrain Teachers College
 * Draft:Brad Bailey

Draft:Christian Hohmann
Hi DGG. This draft that you criticized has been moved to mainspace, but your comments are still on the draft page. I'm not sure if you would like to move them or remove them or what, so I am just saying...&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Bernardo Ibáñez Águila
 * Draft:Bethan Roberts
 * Draft:Brazilian Modern Architecture
 * Draft:Clark CA1
 * Draft:D. B. Keele, Jr.
 * Draft:Dean Anthony Clairs
 * Draft:Fuscospora gunnii
 * Draft:Joseph Cheeran
 * Draft:London School of English
 * Draft:Marian T. Place
 * Draft:Matthew Ward (visualization)
 * Draft:The City of Brass
 * Draft:The Hat Museum
 * Draft:University of Pittsburgh Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glenn Rowell

You've got mail
 Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A suite of dubious for-profit college articles
Hi David. If you have time, could you take a look at my comments at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts? It's a for-profit unaccredited college and one of a whole suite of problematic promotional articles on institutions in the LSBF Group, of which it is a part. They all need eyes. And possibly redirects or AfDs? London College of Contemporary Arts was already deleted at this AfD in 2013 and recreated a few months later. I have no idea what the original one looked like. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the most practical course is to merge to an article on the overall firm. I hope someone other than myself will do it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

GLAM Boot Camp announced (June 14-16 in DC)
You have expressed interest in the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium, so you may be interested in attending the GLAM Boot Camp next month in Washington, DC. This is a training designed to help Wikipedians interested in guiding museums, libraries, and other cultural institutions in wiki engagement. Travel funding available for those in North America. Since the event is coming up soon, please be sure to add your name to the page if you are interested -- and please pass this announcement along. (You may want to share on Facebook or on Twitter.) Thanks for your interest! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Multi-sport event
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Multi-sport event. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Link for GLAM Boot Camp
My apologies - here is the link for the GLAM Boot Camp mentioned above: GLAM/Boot Camp. -Pete (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit as primary sources
Is it acceptable to use lawsuits to source what plaintiffs claim? Can this lead to possible BLP violations? I was told it was not acceptable to use this lawsuit in regards to the article, Columbia University rape controversy. Valoem  talk   contrib  23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

London School of Business and Finance and all its pomps and works
Hi David. Just a heads-up that I have begun clean up of this article following the London College of Contemporary Arts discussion. The details are at Talk:London School of Business and Finance. As I imagine my revisions will not escape the notice of the owner's brand managers, you might want to put it on watch. In the end, I also created a separate article on the owner, Global University Systems, which you might also want to put on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Xactly Corp
I cleaned a bunch of adverts and added sources, what do you think? Valoem  talk   contrib  15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed a good deal of inappropriate and duplicative content.  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkish genocide
Hi. If you'd be so kind, and have the time, would you please review the Turkish genocide article and give guidance to same in the AfD regarding how to correctly follow/interpret WP disambiguation policy? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi. LOOK how fast I was able to use your excellent guidance and advice! Thank you so much. Picomtn (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested Unblock, Did You Get my Email
Hi DGG, did you and the rest of the Arbcom mailing list receive my email of April 24? I asked to be unblocked. I was a contributor of solid content for five or six years before I was perma-blocked without warning with a button click falsely labeling me a sockpuppet by an administrator that didn't explain anything.

I was proud of my contributions to Wikipedia and would like to do so again. As you look into my case (as I expect you to, given your position as arbitrator) do not accept as fact any accusation against me without allowing me to respond. I have endured many many lies and WP:AN/ANI mob attacks in which I was muted and my defenses erased, resulting in damage to my reputation as an editor. Further, do not accept the assertion of Thryduulf at my talkpage that I am on an "appeal timer," because he has no authority to do any such thing and there is nothing in policy that allows him this, as well his purporting timing is unevidenced and suspect.

Answer my email or unblock my talkpage and we'll be able to communicate about this important matter. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.209.135 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Christian Hohmann
Hi DGG. This draft that you criticized has been moved to mainspace, but your comments are still on the draft page. I'm not sure if you would like to move them or remove them or what, so I am just saying...&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A suite of dubious for-profit college articles
Hi David. If you have time, could you take a look at my comments at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts? It's a for-profit unaccredited college and one of a whole suite of problematic promotional articles on institutions in the LSBF Group, of which it is a part. They all need eyes. And possibly redirects or AfDs? London College of Contemporary Arts was already deleted at this AfD in 2013 and recreated a few months later. I have no idea what the original one looked like. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the most practical course is to merge to an article on the overall firm. I hope someone other than myself will do it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Susan Watkins article
Thank you for cleaning up this article. I understand now why the editor I was working with was not much help; editing a Wikipedia article is a special skill! With the help of my wonderful technical adviser Dean Brigham I finally have a User Page, with the disclaimer that you asked me to post. I plan to work with others in my field to publish an Intellectual Biography on Susan Watkins, which will eventually provide another reference. I will also work on an article on the International Textile and Apparel Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan.p.ashdown (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Xactly Corp
I cleaned a bunch of adverts and added sources, what do you think? Valoem  talk   contrib  15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed a good deal of inappropriate and duplicative content.  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heidrun Gerzymisch
Hi DGG. Here's a draft that you commented about some time ago. I found the research section unreadable so I tried to chop out some of the jargon. I hope I didn't hack it up too badly. There are article in the German and French Wikipedias, but they don't seem well-referenced. Do you think it's ready?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Insurance Council of Texas deletion
There was a deletion discussion that happened claiming the Insurance Council of Texas was not a "notable" organization, to which I supplied several references showing coverage in reputable and well known publications ABOUT the Insurance Council of Texas, as well as many other references that showed the Insurance Council of Texas importance. I was following that deletion page for several days to watch for a response, but none came. Can you tell me why it was deleted after I supplied the requested notability references? And why wasn't the discussion on the talk page continued before the deletion occurred? Mattstill (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)mattstill
 * I deleted it on two grounds, either of which would have been sufficient: first, that there was no indication of any encyclopedic importance-- there sources were merely notices of individuals appointed to various positions and the organization honoring its own members, or itsown press releases,which it had published in various local papers, mostly actually marked as press releases. . More important, the article was clearly written to promote the organization: to tell people what the organization wanted to tell them. ~e articles,by contrast, tell people who have heard of the organization what they might want to know.  Te two criteria naturally tend to go together--if there  's nothing anyone in outside the organization's own membership would care about. .You made the comparison with a national organization: that actually proves the point, for national organizations, including the leading trade organization in each line of business, are much more likely to be notable for the purpose of an encyclopedia than state organizations. If you want to try again, and you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, use the WP:ArticleWizard in Draft space.
 * As this is the only article you have written, it is possible that you might have a conflict of interest with the organization. If so, see our rules:WP:COI--conflicts of interest must be declared: See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure  DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Volkswagen Foundation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Volkswagen Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Volkswagen Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Blue Knight (film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Blue Knight (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Blue Knight (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Medical Committee for Human Rights for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Medical Committee for Human Rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Medical Committee for Human Rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of InfoTrac for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InfoTrac is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/InfoTrac until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of SilverPlatter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SilverPlatter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SilverPlatter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

GPX Global Systems Inc.
I frankly planned to nominate as G11 but feared it may be removed, I have PRODed and the author removed that. I'm questionable whether you would like to speedy delete as is or if we'll need something like AfD (to use G4 later if needed). I of course would not be surprised if the user attempts to restart if deleted once. SwisterTwister  talk  07:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I placed a G11.Every reference is a press release, or an Indian newspaper story which is equivalent to a press release. I'll follow up if it is removed.  DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal
Hi Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—‌Википедия and Trud with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie" and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I -- and anyone -- can read it in the article history. This is exactly what I meant by charges not repeated by reliable sources--these are none of them independent sources.  DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)]] ==

I frankly planned to nominate as G11 but feared it may be removed, I have PRODed and the author removed that. I'm questionable whether you would like to speedy delete as is or if we'll need something like AfD (to use G4 later if needed). I of course would not be surprised if the user attempts to restart if deleted once. SwisterTwister  talk  07:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I placed a G11.Every reference is a press release, or an Indian newspaper story which is equivalent to a press release. I'll follow up if it is removed.  DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal
Hi Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—‌Википедия and Trud with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie" and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I -- and anyone -- can read it in the article history. This is exactly what I meant by charges not repeated by reliable sources--these are none of them independent sources.  DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Rizai
Hi David,

I'm confused and could use your guidance on reinstating a page. I saw recently that you removed the page Matthew Rizai and cited reason G11 unambiguous advertising. I don't understand this. This person is the CEO of a publicly traded company. The page was created years ago as a point of reference. Can you help me understand why it was deleted now? I'd like to have it reinstated but would like to know what happened so I can fix it. Thank you, David. -Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMcCarthy1981 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. What you wrote was advertising of their services. I also removed material which you reinsert in the article on his company Workiva, consisting of very extensive closely paraphrased or directly copied quotations from other publications, mostly press releases, either overt press releases or slightly disguised ones.We do not build an article out of quotations from other sources, even when attributed. As for notability , it  would depend   on their being a member of the main board of the NYSE, but the information does not seem to show it,.


 * As you have worked on no other articles but those related to this company, it is possible that you have some conflict of interest. Please see our rules on WP:COI, which, among other things, very strongly advise you to use Draft space, not mainspace. In addition, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure .    DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Stenotype Institute
This certainly seems questionable enough for AfD or PROD, whichever needed, as my searches have found nothing better and the article is not clearly saying if it's a degree-giving school thus satisfying the applicable notability. I was tempted to simply AfD but I wanted your analysis. I have also nominated another questionable article, Articles for deletion/Barbara Justice. SwisterTwister  talk  21:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also wondered if you could help at the following AfDs I had intiated, Articles for deletion/FLAVORx, Articles for deletion/Lindsey White (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Jack El-Hai, Articles for deletion/Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta, Articles for deletion/Lenskart, Articles for deletion/Tally Solutions (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company). I also found Paul Nussbaum which currently seems questionable so I of course welcome your analysis of that (it's worth noting you actually removed an A7 speedy in July 2008). SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * please slow down on the notifications a little---I can;'t get to this many at a time.  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello, DGG! I submitted a comment on the article Dmitry Fedotov. I agree to delete it since the main reason of the article was not it, it was a simple stub expanding accordingly. Have a nice day. OGfromtheGut (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

10:04:41, 16 May 2016 review of submission by Gillkay
Thanks DGG for reveiwing my draft. I have done a bit of wikipedia editing in the past, but this is my first article, which hopefully excuses my wordy style. I have edited the draft according to your suggestions. If I resubmit will it go to you? My first version was edited by CookieMonster755 and I thought when I submitted my second draft it would go back to him unless I requested otherwise (which I didn't). I don't really mind either way, but it would make sense that if I make changes according to a reveiwer's advice, that reveiwer would be the one to see if I had solved the problems.Gillkay (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

, WP has very little organization, Whoever wants to & has the necessary experience can review a draft; it usually goes at random--most people simply take the oldest one in the queue, some, like myself, look for specific types of articles (I specialize in academic people and organizations, and certain types of businesses & certain types of problem articles) I also, as in this case, look at any submission another reviewer asks me to check. This does indeed mean that you may get conflicting directions in successive reviews, but it increases the odds that at least one of the reviews will be correct. The purpose of reviewing is only to screen out or get improved the articles that are unlikely to be accepted by the community after they are brought to article status; accepting an article when reviewing means nothing more than that the reviewer is of the opinion that the article is quite likely to be kept if brought to an WP:AFD discussion; unfortunately once more, the results of AfD discussions are not necessarily consistent or even always reasonable. Just like anyone can write articles, anyone can comment in a discussion. But the principle of WP is that it is not written (or controlled) by experts. The error rate in reviewing is very high--I would estimate that at least 10% of both the acceptances and rejections are simply wrong; in addition, at least 20% of the reviews seem to concentrate on the wrong issues. Some of the most experienced reviewers, including myself, try to check on ones other people have reviewed, especially when we think a particular reviewer is not doing it right, and then we try to explain to the reviewer. If someone persists in doing things seriously wrong, they can be barred from reviewing. At present, most of the really problematic reviewers have been dealt with. Most of the wrongly accepted articles do get removed at AfD; the wrongly rejected ones where the disappointed authors go away and are lost to us are the real problems. There is still some cleanup needed, but I will deal with it later today or tomorrow. You don't actually need to resubmit it  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the wonderful explanation! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 17:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining . Learning gradually how this all works. Do I understand right that you can see my changes and will be telling me in a day or so about other changes I need to make?Gillkay (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/NUCCA
I've restore the content regarding protocol, as suspected User:CFCF is doing a merge without consensus for the third time after warning. Your input may be need for or against. An ANI is looking like a possibility. Valoem  talk   contrib  17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have almost never advised anyone to go to ANI. The results are unpredictable and usually unpleasant to everyone concerned.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

could you please help me with the African Library Project page?
Hi, a while ago you helped with making the African Library Project page more neutral. I made some changes. Then someone else suggested some specific changes, and I requested those edits, but no one has made them. I know you are a volunteer, and I appreciate that, but I am feeling a bit stuck, since it has been a long time. And just as a reminder, I am on the board so can't make the edits myself. Thanks very much. DeborahWC (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

could you please help me with the African Library Project page?
Hi, a while ago you helped with making the African Library Project page more neutral. I made some changes. Then someone else suggested some specific changes, and I requested those edits, but no one has made them. I know you are a volunteer, and I appreciate that, but I am feeling a bit stuck, since it has been a long time. And just as a reminder, I am on the board so can't make the edits myself. Thanks very much. DeborahWC (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * {U:DeborahWC}}, I'll try to get there.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with Beth Stevenson Page that was deleted
So I created a page about Beth Stevenson, a Canadian producer and executive producer. The page was tagged for speedy deletion and the given reason was WP:Resume. I contested the deletion and you reviewed it and said it was promotional. I was wondering how I can change the article into one that is not seen as promotional (seen as neutral), rather one that highlights the achievements and opinions of Beth. I am new to creating pages and your help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahdiRoohi (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, since the only material you have contributed here is on her, and on her studio, it is probably that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest--see our rules on that, and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure. Second, we do not include: the person's self-serving statements of their importance, which make up the entire 2nd part of the article; puffery and adjectives of praise, as seen throughout ; references limited to blogs, press releases,  and the publications of the subject's own company. Stevenson might be notable, but experience shows that articles written by people with a conflict of interest rarely suceeed in demonstrating it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I will consider the things you have pointed out. MahdiRoohi (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Mahdi

North American Invasive Species Network
Hello DGG -

I noticed that the Bot known as HasteurBot has slated North American Invasive Species Network, in the Articles for Creation queue, for G-13 deletion. Personally, I think this article is worth saving and intend to move it out into the mainspace so it doesn't get deleted.

I am thinking this is somehow a notable organization after perusing their website. The work they are doing is profound.

FYI, I discovered this by accident because I saw a G-13 section on your talk page via my watchlist, and was curious as to what G13 is.

Anyway, from prior experience I know that you can be helpful and flexible when it comes to notability if the subject seems to warrant meriting inclusion. So, if you wish to help in any way it would be much appreciated. Also, if this doesn't work, and the page has to be deleted - well, at least I tried.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Giani Dhanwant Singh Sital

Articles
While you're examining articles, I wondered if you could look at these that I recently found that seem questionable: Izumi Muto, Yoon Kyung-byung, Julian Morris (economist), Ali Sajid, K. Hari Prasad, Bruce Guenther, Jean-Pierre Chantin and Serge Duigou. See also Mohamed Gad-el-Hak which I speedy tagged as G11 as it simply seemed too currently troubled. SwisterTwister  talk  19:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Muto: not notable, Yoon notable, I will update; prodded Morris: uncertain--I'm working on it; Sajid: notable as founder of a university--actually, two in succession); Prasad: questionable--I'll check; Guenther: curators in positions like his have been held notable, need ck for copypaste; Chantin & Duigou: uncertain, checking importance of their books ; Mohamed Gad-el-Hak  is probably notable by WP:PROF, and should have been rewritten not deleted--I may rewrite.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability
I would appreciate your opinion on the notability of Robert Buntine and Arnold Buntine before I improve Arnold and write Walter Buntine, The Buntine Lecture, and The Buntine Family. Castlemate (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * there is currently no consensus that headmasters of UK grammar schools and analogous Australian schools are notable; I would be prepared to defend it for the most famous schools, but I am not familiar enough with the Australian system to know which would count there, and I don't want to judge on the basis of those I personally recall having occasion to notice. If Arnold is notable, its because of his sports career: he would appear to meet the current NSPORTS criteria on the basis of his playing for St. Kilda, but I'm very far from an expert in this area. Robert might well be notable as a coach. From what I have seen, the standards there seem uncertain, and the decision at AfDs seems to vary--but, as I said, I'm very far from being an expert. I can't tell about the proposed articles without some more information--but as a matter of strategy, it will be easier to establish notability of individuals than of a family. I know this isn't very helpful, but it's the best I can do.  DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Castlemate (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Ronald J. Ross:
Hello DCG, your comment: "1/ his work on boxing injuries--but unfortunately the source used to show the significance of his paper was published a number of years before his paper". My response: I think you were looking at the Bibliography listings and not the Reference listings. All references to boxing injuries were chronologically correct. Your second comment: "2His early use of MRI -- but this is only for the use in a private clinic, not the early use in medicine in general, where there was no evidence he was not one of the pioneers." My response: Same issue--I believe you are looking at the Bibliography list and not the actual reference. Please review-as I do believe I had it right and now I'm confused. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffyross (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Those were just details, I consider this a promotional biography(and probably autobiography) that would be rapidly deleted in mainspace. The purpose of AfC is to keep out material written with such a conflict of interest.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Greetings DGG: I'm writing to request a third opinion about commentary at this AfD discussion. I'm not asking you to !vote in the discussion, but I'd be interested in receiving your viewpoints inre the commentary there about source searching. Thanks again for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, North America1000 10:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion has now closed, but the question referred to the use of deletion rationals that do not include a literature search, where you and were  arguing, essentially ( that it was necessary to follow WP:BEFORE, rather that use rationales like obviously not notable. Of course I basically agree--I've been suggesting for 8 years now that WP:BEFORE be made policy in discussing notability. But there are many caveats. Key ones include:


 * 1) This applies to the overall process of nominating an article, not each individual argument. In a typical discussion some people will concentrate on the number or quality of sources, others on additional factors.
 * 2) There are other reasons for deletion besides notability -- promotionalism, blp, NOT DIRECTORY, NOT TABLOID, not being a distinct topic from other articles, inherent POV of the topic, etc... In each of these there's the possibility that a literature search may enable us to correct the article, but sometimes the other factors are so strong as to make it unlikely. This is often true for some types of arguments: Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is     good reason for deletion.  Not meeting the special notability standards are good reasons for deletions. Even those can be overcome by really good discoverable sources, but for these types of articles there's no presumption that sources will exist if.
 * 3) Some subjects are inherently unlikely to have accessible sources. As a matter of form I could do a literature search for saints in Eastern religions, but I know from experience that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there will be any that I am capable of finding. There are similarly unlikely to be sources for a scientist who is still a graduate student, or who has published very little. Exceptions exist, but only rarely.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply, which is appreciated. Yes, a variety of various factors can come into play at AfD. I was just concerned because it appears that you are perhaps mentoring a user in some manner who participated in that discussion, in which they ping you to various AfD discussions. I've politely pointed out WP:NEXIST to the user before, but they seem to just ignore it. As such, I figured it would be prudent to bring the matter to your attention. Thanks again for your input here, North America1000 08:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Should have been WP:G3... &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the easiest way to base one article upon another is to immediately remove the content that does not apply, leaving only the skeleton. And it's better to do it in draft space. I've done this . You will find it at Draft:Park Avenue South and East 23rd Street I should have actually read the contents more carefully.  DGG ( talk )

NY entomology journals
Hi, could you perhaps have a look at Talk:Entomologica Americana (New York Entomological Society)? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD concerns
Hi! I'm reaching out to you because I know you work well with many people involved with AfD. I am concerned about the lack of WP:BEFORE going on at these AfD discussions and others. The thread that seems to tie these together is that they are genre writers or foreign actors/writers. Is there anyway you can intervene and help the nom understand WP:BEFORE? I don't mind improving articles brought to AfD, but there's a lot of pressure involved when it's at AfD instead of just being tagged. Anyway, thank you in advance! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I just said to the editor "Please in nominating authors and professors for deletion,remember to consider first if they may meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. It's very easy to use WorldCat to check for the importance of published books. " It is not really enough in these cases to do a cursory search of   relevant databases. BEFORE is not a magic formula, but has to be used with clear understanding of where information is likely to be found. And then, if one finds some indication of importance, that should be followed up before nominating.
 * That said, I too sometimes make guesses, tho I would have to admit that it's an unfortunate shortcut,  and I try to avoid the temptation to make  them in unfamiliar fields. In the instances here,  there does seem to have been a string of wrong guesses.   DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and, i sometimes get annoyed at the number of afds that end up as 'keep' as the subject is notable, especially as WP:AFD encourages nominators to carry out a number of checks before nominating. but as i was informed here Articles for deletion/Peter Willcox, WP:BURDEN states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", or in these cases, the article creator should have included approriate references, although we also have WP:CONTN ie. "Article content does not determine notability", it can all be very confusing. kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it can be confusing, . DGG is right that not all searches are equal. Sometimes I don't find evidence of notability until I hit the right database. And it can be a guessing game where you have to balance a lot of factors. Perhaps itvwouk d help to continue to hold dialogue. I think it's very important for Wikipedia editors to be able to talk to one another. Sometimes AfD becomes a battleground.  But we don't have to agree to start tslking and understanding each other. I appreciate your time here and I'll check my email shortly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)